2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby ucim » Mon May 06, 2019 3:07 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:You know how you solve the problem? By creating an environment where bad information can be called out before it becomes the narrative.
That's well and good, but
1: How does bad information become the narrative?
2: How does bad information get called out?

People have much more interest in juicy bits than in true bits. Sizzle/steak, lie goes around the world before truth puts its boots on. Thing is, truth has to be justified, but lies do not. Find a fix for that and you win the internet. And no, "consumer cooperative" doesn't fix this.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Mon May 06, 2019 3:18 pm UTC

Can't you even make an attempt to answer those questions yourself? I realize that you see your job here as playing devil's advocate for the status quo, and don't actually have an actual stance on anything, but you can at least make an attempt.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby ucim » Mon May 06, 2019 4:46 pm UTC

Thesh wrote: I realize that you see your job here as playing devil's advocate for the status quo, and don't actually have an actual stance on anything
Oh I have a stance, I just don't have a solution. And a bad solution to the wrong problem is just another problem.

Thesh wrote:Can't you even make an attempt to answer those questions yourself?
Sure, but to what end? You could just say my answers were wrong (because they don't lead to your conclusions), but my answers are not what matters. Yours are.

But ok, here's a quick set of thoughts on these questions.
Spoiler:
1: How does bad information become the narrative? The same way gossip spreads. People are interested in (other people's) scandalous activities. They get a charge out of being shocked (no pun intended, honestly!), and it lets them feel superior, victimized, special, or any of the other emotions by which plays generate catharsis. In addition, by passing on this (welcome) bad information, the passer-onner gains respect from the receiver as being "in the know".

This happens equally if the information is actually true, but verifying such information is a lot of work, and that slows the process down, and puts the transmission at risk (what if it were false - I wouldn't get my goose of adrenaline). There are also far more ways that a particular piece of truth can be mischaracterized, and become bad information.

So, the seductive unvetted stories move faster, and just by repetition become accepted. This is as true in the media as it is in gossip.

2: How does bad information get called out? By being corrected. "Last week we reported that Ronald Reagan has half a brain. This turns out to be false. Ronald Regan does not have half a brain. We regret the error." In correcting an error, one can refer to it (spreading it) or not refer to it (competing with it). You can also propose a method where a listener can verify it for themselves. Few do. That's too much work. But the sexy misinformation remains in the brain anyway, to be recalled later (sans source).

If you can successfully address these issue, you will be most of the way towards solving the problem. But the issues are in every individual, not in "the system". Yes, the system can contribute, but unless you change people's fundamental makeup, you won't solve the problem.
Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Mon May 06, 2019 5:04 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote: I realize that you see your job here as playing devil's advocate for the status quo, and don't actually have an actual stance on anything
Oh I have a stance, I just don't have a solution. And a bad solution to the wrong problem is just another problem.


I've proposed a solution; you've dismissed it without a second of thought because you are a capitalist realist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalis ... rnative%3F

You are also an extremely black and white thinker who refuses to discuss anything that can't be written into a specific set of rules to be implemented universally.

ucim wrote:Sure, but to what end? You could just say my answers were wrong (because they don't lead to your conclusions), but my answers are not what matters. Yours are.


Like every other argument you make in any other thread, your response is made without considering anything that I said. Hell, you aren't even addressing bad actors, information asymmetry, access journalism, the complete lack of any auditing infrastructure... You haven't even made the least bit of an attempt to understand the problem, you just completely generalized human behavior to a single trait to rationalize that the problem is unsolvable.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby ucim » Mon May 06, 2019 6:21 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I've proposed a solution; you've dismissed it without a second of thought because you are a capitalist realist.
No, I dismissed it, with a second thought, because it does not address the fundamental problem. Your solution advances your ideas but does not solve the problem. The reason it does not solve the problem is that the problem is elsewhere.

As to whether I'm a "capitalist realist" (from your link: Fisher's concept of "capitalist realism," which he takes to describe "the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it." and "Capitalist realism does not assert that capitalism is a perfect system, but instead that it is the only system that can operate in a means compatible with human nature and economic law."), maybe. I agree with the second characterization, but not the first.
Spoiler:
I think that capitalism has been the most successful system so far at raising standards of living. I also think unrestrained capitalism leads to some deep problems. I don't think there is any "-ism" that works by itself, unrestrained. Each of the -isms has their own advantages, and its own range of situations in which it is useful. But as an engine - a driver - a motivator, capitalism is unexcelled. As a steering wheel - a decider of goals and objectives - an instrument of morality, capitalism is out of place. And as a political power - a maker of laws - an ultimate judge of worth, capitalism is terrible. I have never advocated for unrestrained capitalism, but rather, for the use of capitalism where it is strongest and best - as a fundamental engine, moderated and steered by lawmakers and the public to whom they (supposedly) answer.

Yes, it's a hard balance, especially when power and money so easily convert to each other. But no -ism is immune to the first law of power and its corollary.
Nonetheless, that's not the reason I dismissed your solution. I don't address bad actors, information asymmetry, or any of these other things because they, while they are a problem (and should be addressed anyway), they are not the problem, which is that people soak up and retransmit bad (unverified) information readily, by their nature, and tend to pay less attention to vetted and correct information. It takes more work, and does not directly hit the pleasure center. Advertising experts know this and use it well.

Further, I did not say that the problem was insoluble. I merely pointed out the difficulty of implementing your solution (which was basically "create an environment where bad things don't happen"), and asked you to elaborate in a certain direction. Specifically, how would you go against the ingrained human nature I described? (Or, give me evidence that I'm wrong about human nature in this regard).

Here's a simple case. Premise (with which I happen to agree) - the advertising model of the internet has caused great harm, prioritizing clicks and "engagement" over truth and reasoning, and this leads to the proliferation of bad information. But people like "free". If you could convince people to instead pay for internet access (and pay for content) to avoid being targeted, tracked, datamined, etc., you could put a big brake on those harmful effects.

Question 0: Do you disagree with the premise, or the idea that this would at least help?
Question 1: How would you market it? (Or would you do so by fiat?)
Question 2: Do you think it would catch on? (Facebook keeps growing...)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Mon May 06, 2019 7:06 pm UTC

ucim wrote:No, I dismissed it, with a second thought, because it does not address the fundamental problem. Your solution advances your ideas but does not solve the problem. The reason it does not solve the problem is that the problem is elsewhere.


And this is why you can never solve a single problem, because your thought process is:

1) Develop thought experiment
2) Find an argument against it
3) Dismiss literally everything said because it isn't a perfect solution to every problem

ucim wrote:Nonetheless, that's not the reason I dismissed your solution. I don't address bad actors, information asymmetry, or any of these other things because they, while they are a problem (and should be addressed anyway), they are not the problem, which is that people soak up and retransmit bad (unverified) information readily, by their nature, and tend to pay less attention to vetted and correct information. It takes more work, and does not directly hit the pleasure center. Advertising experts know this and use it well.


Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_o ... ngle_cause

You have admitted yourself in a previous thread that you have never studied anything at all to do with human nature, and so it's obvious you are completely talking out of your own ass, and it's clear you haven't even bothered to make an attempt to understand anything about how information is disseminated, why people share it, what misinformation it requires to even believe it, or anything else.

You do this every fucking time. You latch onto the very first argument you can think of without studying anything relevant to the arguments.

ucim wrote:Further, I did not say that the problem was insoluble. I merely pointed out the difficulty of implementing your solution (which was basically "create an environment where bad things don't happen"), and asked you to elaborate in a certain direction. Specifically, how would you go against the ingrained human nature I described? (Or, give me evidence that I'm wrong about human nature in this regard).


You boiled the entire problem down to human nature, which is to say that you believe it's unsolvable. You didn't address the implementation details, you just said "I hAvE UnANsWerEd qUesTIons", which is literally nothing more than you trying to reduce yet another problem to a simple thought experiment that can be explored in purely black and white terms. You are not asking me how to solve any problem, you are asking me to lay out a detailed plan for every single potential problem (without even bothering to even consider how oversight work in the first place); well, it doesn't exist - which is why you literally do not have a solution to any problem in society, whatsoever, because you are incapable of thinking in a way which allows you to address things.

Is there a single problem that you don't just think boils down to "human nature"?

ucim wrote:Here's a simple case. Premise (with which I happen to agree) - the advertising model of the internet has caused great harm, prioritizing clicks and "engagement" over truth and reasoning, and this leads to the proliferation of bad information. But people like "free". If you could convince people to instead pay for internet access (and pay for content) to avoid being targeted, tracked, datamined, etc., you could put a big brake on those harmful effects.


Ban advertising. What good comes out of it?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby idonno » Mon May 06, 2019 7:47 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:There is no obligation if there is no consequences. I really don't feel like explaining how these questions have already been answered in the myriad of other professions that have ethical obligations and oversight.

And in the case of the media, whoever enforces things has substantially different power than most professions.

Thesh wrote:How do we economics? The journalists have to justify their own stories, in the same way that doctors have to justify medicine, and researchers have to justify the usefulness of their research.

So they either work for large corporations generating profit or have to seek out grants often from people that may well be subjects of interest? That seems flawed.

Thesh wrote:"Information is complicated, so let's not even make an attempt to discuss solutions for the problem and just agree that a system that is obviously failing to inform people about the things that affect them is the best we can have."


Pointing out major holes and potential weaknesses that need to be addressed is how you discuss building proper fixes.


Things like
You know how you solve the problem? By creating an environment where bad information can be called out before it becomes the narrative.
is fluff not a solution.

Stop acting like you are providing a well reasoned solution to a difficult problem in a 45 word post and acting like people questioning it are just fighting to maintain the status quo

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Mon May 06, 2019 7:59 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
Thesh wrote:There is no obligation if there is no consequences. I really don't feel like explaining how these questions have already been answered in the myriad of other professions that have ethical obligations and oversight.

And in the case of the media, whoever enforces things has substantially different power than most professions.


The oversight is pretty much the job of journalists already. You don't need a "whoever", you just need enough news agencies who require membership in professional associations who can revoke that membership.

idonno wrote:So they either work for large corporations generating profit or have to seek out grants often from people that may well be subjects of interest? That seems flawed.


I already said they should be converted to consumer cooperatives.

idonno wrote:Pointing out major holes and potential weaknesses that need to be addressed is how you discuss building proper fixes.


You purposely cut out the quote I was responding to:
"I doubt you can design a system of enforcing any sort of obligation that is not open to several attack vectors for abuse"

Which is not you pointing out holes, it's you saying "we should not have computers because security holes exist. Like, yeah, I've studied computer security; I know there has never been anyone to propose a perfect security system.

idonno wrote:Stop acting like you are providing a well reasoned solution to a difficult problem in a 45 word post and acting like people questioning it are just fighting to maintain the status quo


Stop acting like you are making reasonable objections to things I have stated, and not just arguing against the premise.

Much like ucim, you seem to think that I have claimed that every single problem can be solved by a simple set of rules.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby idonno » Mon May 06, 2019 8:30 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:The oversight is pretty much the job of journalists already. You don't need a "whoever", you just need enough news agencies who require membership in professional associations who can revoke that membership.
and if that association run by human beings has an agenda? Organisations can and have been co-opted toward nefarious ends and at least to me, it seems dangerous to focus too much power over the press in a single organisation. Also, how do you get news agencies to that point? A Co-op isn't going to suddenly motivate all the Fox News viewership to try to get a more fair and balanced reporting standard.

Thesh wrote:I already said they should be converted to consumer cooperatives.

but you also said
Thesh wrote:in the same way that doctors have to justify medicine, and researchers have to justify the usefulness of their research.

and how does research get funding?

Thesh wrote:
idonno wrote:Pointing out major holes and potential weaknesses that need to be addressed is how you discuss building proper fixes.


You purposely cut out the quote I was responding to:
"I doubt you can design a system of enforcing any sort of obligation that is not open to several attack vectors for abuse"

Which is not you pointing out holes, it's you saying "we should not have computers because security holes exist. Like, yeah, I've studied computer security; I know there has never been anyone to propose a perfect security system.

I didn't purposefully cut out anything. I am just trying to keep nesting from getting out of hand and didn't think that added much. That is a summary of the reasoning behind the questioning above not an independent statement dismissing your entire idea out of hand. Unless you can provide a reasonable amount of security to the holes you don't have a solution and you can't just assume that there aren't some pretty big holes.

There are abuses in the current system but the problems are reasonably understood. If you are going to introduce a new system, it has to have security against attack vectors figured out before it comes into use. Or maybe you think it can be incrementally achieved but the proposed system seems radically enough different that I am not sure how you would accomplish that.

Thesh wrote:Stop acting like you are making reasonable objections to things I have stated, and not just arguing against the premise.

I haven't been intentionally hostile toward your premise and if I am coming off that way I am sorry. I don't have anywhere near a sufficient understanding of how you think such a system would work to even make a judgment on your idea

I will say that when you make claims like "I've proposed a solution; you've dismissed it without a second of thought because you are a capitalist realist", it harms your case because what you have provided here is not yet close to anything that can accurately be described as a solution and I am absolutely hostile to such a unjustified assertion about what you have provided thus far.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Mon May 06, 2019 8:39 pm UTC

idonno wrote:and if that association run by human beings has an agenda? Organisations can and have been co-opted toward nefarious ends and at least to me, it seems dangerous to focus too much power over the press in a single organisation. Also, how do you get news agencies to that point? A Co-op isn't going to suddenly motivate all the Fox News viewership to try to get a more fair and balanced reporting standard.


Why would there only be one organization? If you have many organizations, one can't be co-opted without being called out.

idonno wrote:
Thesh wrote:I already said they should be converted to consumer cooperatives.

but you also said
Thesh wrote:in the same way that doctors have to justify medicine, and researchers have to justify the usefulness of their research.

and how does research get funding?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers'_co-operative

idonno wrote:I didn't purposefully cut out anything. I am just trying to keep nesting from getting out of hand and didn't think that added much. That is a summary of the reasoning behind the questioning above not an independent statement dismissing your entire idea out of hand. Unless you can provide a reasonable amount of security to the holes you don't have a solution and you can't just assume that there aren't some pretty big holes.

There are abuses in the current system but the problems are reasonably understood. If you are going to introduce a new system, it has to have security against attack vectors figured out before it comes into use. Or maybe you think it can be incrementally achieved but the proposed system seems radically enough different that I am not sure how you would accomplish that.


Have you ever heard of the swiss cheese model? I'm proposing adding a layer of security, and changing from for-profit to non-profit, not a completely new system (whatever that would mean).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model

idonno wrote:I haven't been intentionally hostile toward your premise and if I am coming off that way I am sorry. I don't have anywhere near a sufficient understanding of how you think such a system would work to even make a judgment on your idea

I will say that when you make claims like "I've proposed a solution; you've dismissed it without a second of thought because you are a capitalist realist", it harms your case because what you have provided here is not yet close to anything that can accurately be described as a solution and I am absolutely hostile to such a unjustified assertion about what you have provided thus far.


My point is that you aren't even making any specific arguments against what I am proposing, you are arguing against the idea that the problem can be solved.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby ucim » Tue May 07, 2019 1:07 am UTC

to idonno, Thesh wrote:My point is that you aren't even making any specific arguments against what I am proposing, you are arguing against the idea that the problem can be solved.
What you are proposing isn't a solution, it is a vision. And we aren't arguing the problem can't be solved, we're arguing that that isn't a solution.

to me, Thesh wrote:because your thought process is: [1)... 2)...]
3) Dismiss literally everything said because it isn't a perfect solution to every problem
No, dismiss quoted thing said because it isn't a solution, or it's a solution to a different problem than the one raised. Or it causes bigger problems. To wit:
solving the advertising model of the internet, Thesh wrote:Ban advertising. What good comes out of it?
Assuming you're serious:
This solution is too easily gamed ("who decides what counts as advertising?") and interferes with the First Amendment (even commercial speech is, and should be, protected). If this were a viable option, it would be a far more viable option for robocalls. Yet despite all the... er... calls to ban robocalls, it ain't happening either, and that's a much stronger case.

Assuming you're being flip:
Pot. Kettle.

Thesh wrote:You boiled the entire problem down to human nature, which is to say that you believe it's unsolvable.
No. Saying a problem has its roots in human nature means that to solve it, you need to consider human nature. Your solution has to be robust against it. "Imagine a solution" isn't a solution.

Thesh wrote:Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? [fallacy of single cause]
...which is "a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes."

I claim that the issue (bad info spreading faster and wider than good info) is not caused by "only jointly sufficient causes". It's always been a problem, though it's been amplified by the strong connectedness of communications today, which is primarily driven by social networks, which are primarily driven by the desire (on the part of individuals) to be connected, and the desire (on the part of the platforms) for analysing our vulnerabilities, to be then monetized. Which leads to the clickbait model, and the truism "if you're not the customer, you're the product".

Now, if we were paying for access, there'd be less temptation on the part of corporations to try to datamine us. Enough less? Maybe. Dunno. Money is a powerful motivator (which is why capitalism works as an engine). But ego is also a powerful motivator. This forum, while free, isn't monetized (TMBK) to the point where Randall wants us to "stay engaged". I suspect he pretty much ignores the fora, and he's even taken it off the menu. I think (though I have not researched it carefully) that discussion here is at a higher level than Twitter or Youtube.
Spoiler:
Yet still not everyone here agrees with me yet. :)
It also attracts a different kind of person, and is a platform with little influence. Randall has influence, but we on his platform don't. So, these fora are not targeted by bad actors the way Youtube is.

So, does this "solve the problem by creating an environment where bad information can be called out before it becomes the narrative."? Maybe. If we go with this, the next thing is to figure out how to make people (platform creators and platform participants) want to do this. We'd need to figure out how to get people off of facebook, and on to our new thing.

But none of this was your proposal. You gave a vision, but how to get there was not in anything you said.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Tue May 07, 2019 1:38 am UTC

ucim wrote:What you are proposing isn't a solution, it is a vision.


What in the fuck does that even mean? I proposed two very specific things that we can implement today.

ucim wrote:And we aren't arguing the problem can't be solved, we're arguing that that isn't a solution.


You have not made an argument at all. You have literally done nothing but assert that oversight cannot work because "human nature" - you have made no attempt to back up any of your assertions with anything but more assertions; it's not even allowing for the possibility that anything I have offered can change anything for the better. You literally are just saying that perfection is impossible to dismiss a partial solution.
ucim wrote:No, dismiss quoted thing said because it isn't a solution, or it's a solution to a different problem than the one raised. Or it causes bigger problems.


No, you have just asserted these things. You haven't backed it up with any actual reasoning or evidence whatsoever but to assert "human nature".
ucim wrote:Assuming you're serious:
This solution is too easily gamed ("who decides what counts as advertising?") and interferes with the First Amendment (even commercial speech is, and should be, protected). If this were a viable option, it would be a far more viable option for robocalls. Yet despite all the... er... calls to ban robocalls, it ain't happening either, and that's a much stronger case.


Again, this is your same old bullshit - "I don't have a definition of what advertising is off the top of my head, so it must be impossible to even begin to address in any way". Not a single argument of substance for you - ever.

Literally: Advertising is when someone is paying people money to influence people to consume products.

ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:You boiled the entire problem down to human nature, which is to say that you believe it's unsolvable.
No. Saying a problem has its roots in human nature means that to solve it, you need to consider human nature. Your solution has to be robust against it. "Imagine a solution" isn't a solution.


Again, you are saying this is the primary cause. Did you realize that human nature is also a desire for knowledge? Did you know that human nature includes............ *GASP*.......... Confirmation bias?! You haven't even taken the time to understand the issues, but boy you have all of the answers for why literally the only possible solution is to let the markets work it out.

ucim wrote:I claim that the issue (bad info spreading faster and wider than good info) is not caused by "only jointly sufficient causes". It's always been a problem, though it's been amplified by the strong connectedness of communications today, which is primarily driven by social networks, which are primarily driven by the desire (on the part of individuals) to be connected, and the desire (on the part of the platforms) for analysing our vulnerabilities, to be then monetized. Which leads to the clickbait model, and the truism "if you're not the customer, you're the product".


Dude, you said you didn't have to address any of the other issues, and only have to be concerned with this one.

ucim wrote:Now, if we were paying for access, there'd be less temptation on the part of corporations to try to datamine us. Enough less? Maybe. Dunno. Money is a powerful motivator (which is why capitalism works as an engine). But ego is also a powerful motivator. This forum, while free, isn't monetized (TMBK) to the point where Randall wants us to "stay engaged". I suspect he pretty much ignores the fora, and he's even taken it off the menu. I think (though I have not researched it carefully) that discussion here is at a higher level than Twitter or Youtube.
Spoiler:
Yet still not everyone here agrees with me yet. :)
It also attracts a different kind of person, and is a platform with little influence. Randall has influence, but we on his platform don't. So, these fora are not targeted by bad actors the way Youtube is.

So, does this "solve the problem by creating an environment where bad information can be called out before it becomes the narrative."? Maybe. If we go with this, the next thing is to figure out how to make people (platform creators and platform participants) want to do this. We'd need to figure out how to get people off of facebook, and on to our new thing.

But none of this was your proposal. You gave a vision, but how to get there was not in anything you said.


Literally, my proposal was consumer cooperatives (i.e. eliminating bad incentives) and professional oversight (deterrent) - as an extreme authoritarian, you should be able to understand that much. This comment addresses none of that. You had a hypothetical about advertising as a gotcha, and now you are being a jackass because you didn't think I would have an answer. All of this is irrelevant to my point.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby idonno » Tue May 07, 2019 5:29 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Why would there only be one organization? If you have many organizations, one can't be co-opted without being called out.

I think in this scenario you would end up with a liberal and conservative divide.

Thesh wrote:
idonno wrote:
Thesh wrote:I already said they should be converted to consumer cooperatives.

but you also said
Thesh wrote:in the same way that doctors have to justify medicine, and researchers have to justify the usefulness of their research.

and how does research get funding?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers'_co-operative

So they have to justify to the owners of a co-op which is very different from the examples you gave. What makes you think the Co-op would be motivated by the standard you provided? Based on political votes, I think there is a pretty strong history of people ignoring things that most impact them and I think there are moral issues like providing military aid to dictators that have very little or even a positive impact on them but should not be framed that way because of the negative impact on others. Maybe if you change to a Co-op system, you get some feedback loops that fix this but it isn't clear to me what these would be or what direction we could expect any feedback loop to push the needle. If there is some reason to believe that this would self correct ideological issues rather than amplifying them, that would be good to know.

As a side not, if you have a way to convince people that news is worth paying for (which would be a requirement to get people to form co-ops), you could become a very wealthy man.

Thesh wrote:Have you ever heard of the swiss cheese model? I'm proposing adding a layer of security, and changing from for-profit to non-profit, not a completely new system (whatever that would mean).
Non profit Co-ops controlled and funded by groups of people trying to get the news important to them is a completely new system compared to what we currently have.

Thesh wrote:My point is that you aren't even making any specific arguments against what I am proposing, you are arguing against the idea that the problem can be solved.
My point is that I'm not making any arguments against your proposal. I am asking you questions about your proposal because you have provided very little information and I am trying to ascertain how it would actually work and be implemented. As I already said "I don't have anywhere near a sufficient understanding of how you think such a system would work to even make a judgment on your idea". Questioning is not the same thing as opposition. I suppose I don't believe the problem can be solved strictly speaking but I do think that it is unlikely that there is no way to improve the situation.

Currently I am neither for or against what you want I am trying to figure out what you want and what reasons you have to think that it will work. Maybe it would be easiest if you spelled out specific changes, what issues you think they help improve, and how you think they accomplish this instead of making broad statements.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Tue May 07, 2019 6:16 am UTC

Your problem is that you are asking the wrong questions; you are worrying about how to fix everything, when all you need to do is give enough people something they can trust over mainstream and right-wing media and it becomes more difficult to disseminate bad information. It's a matter of the more people who have good information, the harder it is to spread bad information on social media. It's a matter of being able to force mainstream media to be more responsible by auditing stories and reporting on the quality of information and reputability of journalists (regardless of membership).

Democrat vs Republican is WAY too simplistic, and mainly a problem of the nationalization of politics; even with conservative cooperatives or oversight, the priorities of reporting will be vastly different without a profit motive (hell, rich people buy news organizations just so they can push an agenda). The local issues differ from place to place, but Republican policies are not helping them and they can't see it because they've been blinded with fear of Sharia law, immigrants, etc.

As for paying for news, nothing changes but ownership. They still have paid memberships and ads (like most non-profit news today), and it would be in their best interest to share all of their stories with each other so you can get all of your news in one place.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Chen » Tue May 07, 2019 12:00 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Your problem is that you are asking the wrong questions; you are worrying about how to fix everything, when all you need to do is give enough people something they can trust over mainstream and right-wing media and it becomes more difficult to disseminate bad information. It's a matter of the more people who have good information, the harder it is to spread bad information on social media. It's a matter of being able to force mainstream media to be more responsible by auditing stories and reporting on the quality of information and reputability of journalists (regardless of membership).


If you want this to exist alongside mainstream news, whats actually stopping this then? Just the will to do it?

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby idonno » Tue May 07, 2019 1:11 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:all you need to do is give enough people something they can trust over mainstream and right-wing media and it becomes more difficult to disseminate bad information.

I think you are discounting the impact of preexisting biases by an enormous amount. People seem to have a strong preference for changing facts rather than changing their opinion. Given how little reason it takes to determine that an article on a random website is not trustworthy, and how much this sort of reporting has been proliferated, I think the battle is much more uphill than you seem to believe.

Thesh wrote:As for paying for news, nothing changes but ownership. They still have paid memberships and ads (like most non-profit news today)
Greater accountability is not free. It is difficult to fund current operations with current revenue and there is increasing competition for ad revenues. I don't think the argument that you can add more accountability without more cost is valid.

If this is the entirety of your concept, I don't think it works but the good news is if I am wrong, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping its implementation and an additional model of news delivery isn't likely to hurt anything.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Tue May 07, 2019 1:42 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
Thesh wrote:all you need to do is give enough people something they can trust over mainstream and right-wing media and it becomes more difficult to disseminate bad information.

I think you are discounting the impact of preexisting biases by an enormous amount. People seem to have a strong preference for changing facts rather than changing their opinion. Given how little reason it takes to determine that an article on a random website is not trustworthy, and how much this sort of reporting has been proliferated, I think the battle is much more uphill than you seem to believe.


You are still thinking too black and white. It's not about convincing every single right-wing person, only getting misinformation out of the mainstream. You are focusing on the people who are helpless to dismiss the idea that people in general can be helped, and it's just fucking annoying - the point is to start with who you can help. I don't know why you are so damned absolutist about this whole thing.


idonno wrote:Greater accountability is not free. It is difficult to fund current operations with current revenue and there is increasing competition for ad revenues. I don't think the argument that you can add more accountability without more cost is valid.


Oh no, things cost money, whatever will we do. Now you aren't even arguing the point anymore.

idonno wrote:If this is the entirety of your concept, I don't think it works but the good news is if I am wrong, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping its implementation and an additional model of news delivery isn't likely to hurt anything.


I don't think you have given anything related to this enough thought to make that kind of judgement. You haven't even begun to determine how things would work, only looked for those areas where you can't figure it out.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby idonno » Tue May 07, 2019 7:25 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
idonno wrote:Greater accountability is not free. It is difficult to fund current operations with current revenue and there is increasing competition for ad revenues. I don't think the argument that you can add more accountability without more cost is valid.

Oh no, things cost money, whatever will we do. Now you aren't even arguing the point anymore.

You said "As for paying for news, nothing changes but ownership" and I said, you need more money for more stuff and the current payment is struggling as it is. If you need more funding than a currently struggling funding source is providing, you very much cannot also claim that nothing changes on the payment side.
Thesh wrote:You are still thinking too black and white. It's not about convincing every single right-wing person, only getting misinformation out of the mainstream. You are focusing on the people who are helpless to dismiss the idea that people in general can be helped, and it's just fucking annoying - the point is to start with who you can help. I don't know why you are so damned absolutist about this whole thing.

I think the people with ideological issues causing substantial biases are much more prevalent than you think. You have to be able to transition from a fringe certification that it would start out as to a mainstream certification and that is going to require some sort of adoption feedback loop. I see not clear reason to expect that especially if it will cost a struggling industry more money that it does not have.

Thesh wrote:I don't think you have given anything related to this enough thought to make that kind of judgement. You haven't even begun to determine how things would work, only looked for those areas where you can't figure it out.

I'm pretty sure it is up to you to explain to people how a system you envision would work. Based on your current explanation, I don't think it would.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Tue May 07, 2019 8:20 pm UTC

idonno wrote:You said "As for paying for news, nothing changes but ownership" and I said, you need more money for more stuff and the current payment is struggling as it is. If you need more funding than a currently struggling funding source is providing, you very much cannot also claim that nothing changes on the payment side.


You are conflating two complementary proposals that don't have to be used at the same time. There are already independent oversight organizations. There are already independent journalists. Journalists already write opinion pieces and responses. There are already activist professional associations like the National Lawyers Guild, where it is funded through membership fees and donations. How much do you think fact checking costs?

There are already non-profit news websites like ProPublica, DemocracyNow, and Mother Jones. You are acting like no one would spend money on news, like there is no money available for activism, like the only thing that exists are the markets and all solutions must be wrapped up in that (capitalist realism for you).

idonno wrote:I think the people with ideological issues causing substantial biases are much more prevalent than you think.


How many more times do I have to say this? It's not just about biases, it's about priorities, and you focus on those you can help. You start by getting progressives and leftists to agree on facts, then you start to get centrists to agree to them. Now mainstream media can't push facts counter to this. This is the overton window. Politics is driven by politicians and media, not just personal biases; I think this is why you are having so difficult of a time thinking about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

idonno wrote:You have to be able to transition from a fringe certification that it would start out as to a mainstream certification and that is going to require some sort of adoption feedback loop. I see not clear reason to expect that especially if it will cost a struggling industry more money that it does not have.


Again, you don't need to convert every single mainstream media organization, you just need enough to be trustworthy so you can call out mainstream media.

idonno wrote:I'm pretty sure it is up to you to explain to people how a system you envision would work. Based on your current explanation, I don't think it would.


Based on your writings, I am absolutely certain you haven't made an attempt to understand the problem within the media, and so your opinion for why it won't work is completely irrelevant. This is where my annoyance comes from.

Read "Manufacturing Consent" - it's highly relevant to current events in Venezuela as well.

EDIT:

This is also relevant, as the same principle applies:
When Doctors and Nurses Can Disclose and Discuss Errors, Hospital Mortality Rates Decline
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Chen » Wed May 08, 2019 10:19 am UTC

Thesh wrote:You are conflating two complementary proposals that don't have to be used at the same time. There are already independent oversight organizations. There are already independent journalists. Journalists already write opinion pieces and responses. There are already activist professional associations like the National Lawyers Guild, where it is funded through membership fees and donations. How much do you think fact checking costs?

There are already non-profit news websites like ProPublica, DemocracyNow, and Mother Jones. You are acting like no one would spend money on news, like there is no money available for activism, like the only thing that exists are the markets and all solutions must be wrapped up in that (capitalist realism for you).


So you are proposing something for journalism that already exists in other fields. Great. Clearly journalism hasn’t voluntarily decided to implement this type of thing. How do you propose imposing this then? The public doesn’t seem particularly bothered on the whole about the lack of fact checking compared to the ease of getting “news” (fake or otherwise). Are you proposing laws to somehow enforce this? Certification in the same way doctors, lawyers or engineers need to be certified but for journalists? Off the top of my head that seems like simplest way to try and implement something like this.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Wed May 08, 2019 1:44 pm UTC

How did anything else I mentioned come into existence?

Chen wrote:The public doesn’t seem particularly bothered on the whole about the lack of fact checking compared to the ease of getting “news” (fake or otherwise).


Ah, yes, because the free markets determine exactly what people want and deliver it to them. I'm done with this idiocy.

https://www.cnet.com/news/founder-of-cr ... fake-news/
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Wed May 08, 2019 4:52 pm UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ca ... -combined/
Biden continued to dominate cable news coverage on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. According to data from the TV News Archive, which chops up TV news into 15-second clips that we access using the GDELT Project’s Television API,1 Biden was mentioned in more clips that any other candidate across the three networks last week, and he was mentioned almost four times as often as Sen. Bernie Sanders, who had been getting the most coverage of any 2020 candidate before Biden joined the race. For the second consecutive week, Biden, who has also been well ahead in polling and endorsements, was mentioned in about as many clips as all the other candidates combined.

Damn, Biden is strong as a front runner. Stronger than I expected for an old man with creepy outdated views. It's why too early to decide, but I'm curious if 2020 will be if uneducated whites in the Midwest will come back to the Democrats. Personally, I rather win the southern route, but it's just not there yet. You can't get there with Trump only being mostly hated by Hispanics. You have to be entirely hated by them.

The analysts are assuming the weaker campaigns are running the long game and waiting for Iowa/new Hampshire.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Wed May 08, 2019 5:03 pm UTC

Biden is being pushed by the same old neoliberals. He has corporate backing, but that is not a winning platform. Democrats are dead if they vote Biden.

Which candidate can beat Trump?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfGxX9EXHsg
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Chen » Wed May 08, 2019 5:32 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:How did anything else I mentioned come into existence?


Practicing law, medicine etc without a license is government enforced via laws. So presumably yes you would need some sort of laws to do the same for journalists/bloggers/whoever produces news.

Chen wrote:The public doesn’t seem particularly bothered on the whole about the lack of fact checking compared to the ease of getting “news” (fake or otherwise).


Ah, yes, because the free markets determine exactly what people want and deliver it to them. I'm done with this idiocy.

https://www.cnet.com/news/founder-of-cr ... fake-news/


The whole point of that statement is that you're not going to get what you want through simple voluntary action. I mean that's available to people right now and they're not doing it sufficiently to overcome the mainstream fake or misleading news. So something will need to be mandated and enforced. Laws like those that exist for doctors, lawyers and such seem like a method of going about this.

Why you're being so fucking obtuse and rude when people are trying to discuss is beyond me.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Wed May 08, 2019 5:41 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Thesh wrote:How did anything else I mentioned come into existence?


Practicing law, medicine etc without a license is government enforced via laws. So presumably yes you would need some sort of laws to do the same for journalists/bloggers/whoever produces news.


None of those organizations mentioned were enforced via laws. Most are non-profit news organizations, the other is an independent professional association.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lawyers_Guild

Chen wrote:Why you're being so fucking obtuse and rude when people are trying to discuss is beyond me.


People aren't trying to discuss, they are trying to dismiss.

How do you back up this statement?
Chen wrote:The whole point of that statement is that you're not going to get what you want through simple voluntary action.


How much thought have you put into what the problem is? How much thought have you put into where people are getting bad information from? How much thought have you put into how oversight would work? Have you looked into the academic work on social media influence? You are not asking any questions that facilitate productive discussion. You are asking about where to get the funding, why the markets haven't done it already, etc.

So tell me: How in the fuck are you going to understand what to do if you don't understand what problem you are solving?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Chen » Wed May 08, 2019 6:37 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:How do you back up this statement?
Chen wrote:The whole point of that statement is that you're not going to get what you want through simple voluntary action.


How much thought have you put into what the problem is? How much thought have you put into where people are getting bad information from? How much thought have you put into how oversight would work? Have you looked into the academic work on social media influence? You are not asking any questions that facilitate productive discussion. You are asking about where to get the funding, why the markets haven't done it already, etc.

So tell me: How in the fuck are you going to understand what to do if you don't understand what problem you are solving?


The backup is that it hasn't been done yet. Fake news is not new. The mainstream media doesn't seem to have any intention of moving to the level of oversight you are suggesting. Some sort of driver is required. Maybe if Trump wins again it will drive more people to try and do this without any type of government intervention, but you'd think the first time would have been sufficient for that.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Wed May 08, 2019 6:39 pm UTC

Response To Every Single Criticism of Any Existing System That Suggests An Alternative wrote:The backup is that it hasn't been done yet.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Chen » Wed May 08, 2019 6:59 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Response To Every Single Criticism of Any Existing System That Suggests An Alternative wrote:The backup is that it hasn't been done yet.


So then what will drive this to be done? I proposed some change in law. Im not even sure you agree or disagree with that, so can you be clear? What is going to drive people to move forward with your idea?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Wed May 08, 2019 7:07 pm UTC

No, I do not support using the law. I support creating more non-profit news organizations to counter mainstream media, and independent professional associations who can take responsibility for oversight. What specific problem would you like to talk about solving? Determining what is factual? Determining who you can and cannot trust? Deplatforming bad actors?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Chen » Wed May 08, 2019 9:58 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:No, I do not support using the law. I support creating more non-profit news organizations to counter mainstream media, and independent professional associations who can take responsibility for oversight. What specific problem would you like to talk about solving? Determining what is factual? Determining who you can and cannot trust? Deplatforming bad actors?


But its answers like this that are causing people (I believe) to dismiss your idea. Its all well and good to want more non-profit news and independent associations to reign in fake news. But what is going to drive people to do that? I mean theres nothing, a priori, stopping people from creating those institutions right now.

You explicitly said you proposed a solution but with no way (at least not one that you’re mentioning) on how to bring it about. I mean I 100% agree that non-profit news should be the way to go. I have no idea how to implement that, especially not without using the law to encourage/force it. An unimplementable idea is very hard to get much discussion around, particularly if the idea itself, were it to just suddenly occur, probably isnt all tha controversial.

If my solution to people of color being disproportionately imprisoned is simply for people to stop being racist or xenophobic the idea itself is not controversial but its utterly detached from reality if it cant be implemented. Its a dream not a solution.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Wed May 08, 2019 10:13 pm UTC

I am incapable of explaining it to your satisfaction because you are completely unwilling to understand the problem or even consider a subset of the problem. There is literally nothing I can say here that will get through to you because you absolutely refuse to engage in productive debate. You haven't shown any willingness to discuss any of the causes whatsoever, and so this conversation cannot stay anchored to the real world. Hell, you aren't even discussing the merits of the system, but saying "how will we pay for it?" - which is probably the single stupidest place to start with any political issue.

If you really want to discuss it, then start another thread on journalism, but put some effort into specifics and trying to understand the problem and don't just say "How do we solve journalism?"
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby arbiteroftruth » Wed May 08, 2019 10:32 pm UTC

The question is "what is the nature of the activism needed to bring about your idea?"

You've said it's not political activism to enact laws regulating journalism standards. Is it economic activism of directly creating and/or supporting new news agencies (changing the supply side of the market)? Is it cultural activism of encouraging people to not be misled by clickbait journalism and to seek out more reliable sources (changing the demand side of the market)? Is it some method of fundamentally changing the nature of the media industry that doesn't rely on changing laws (if so, more detail will be necessary)? Is it some combination of all of the above? Is it something completely different I haven't even considered here?

I'm not asking for every last detail of your solution, or suggesting that a solution is impossible. I'm just not even clear what basic form of activism you have in mind to get to where you want to go.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Wed May 08, 2019 10:38 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:Is it economic activism of directly creating and/or supporting new news agencies (changing the supply side of the market)?


That's part of it.

arbiteroftruth wrote:Is it cultural activism of encouraging people to not be misled by clickbait journalism and to seek out more reliable sources (changing the demand side of the market)?


That's part of it.

arbiteroftruth wrote:Is it some method of fundamentally changing the nature of the media industry that doesn't rely on changing laws (if so, more detail will be necessary)?


That's part of it.

arbiteroftruth wrote:I'm not asking for every last detail of your solution, or suggesting that a solution is impossible. I'm just not even clear what basic form of activism you have in mind to get to where you want to go.


This is the problem. There is no "basic form of activism" - there is just activism. You do what works where it works. You help who you can help. You need to be organized, but how you organize depends on the specific problem you are talking about.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Chen » Thu May 09, 2019 1:27 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I am incapable of explaining it to your satisfaction because you are completely unwilling to understand the problem or even consider a subset of the problem. There is literally nothing I can say here that will get through to you because you absolutely refuse to engage in productive debate. You haven't shown any willingness to discuss any of the causes whatsoever, and so this conversation cannot stay anchored to the real world. Hell, you aren't even discussing the merits of the system, but saying "how will we pay for it?" - which is probably the single stupidest place to start with any political issue.

If you really want to discuss it, then start another thread on journalism, but put some effort into specifics and trying to understand the problem and don't just say "How do we solve journalism?"


But YOU proposed the “solution” on how to solve journalism. People are criticizing your solution because we cannot see how to enact not. No one is arguing the solution you proposed isn’t good in and of itself. No one is debating that non-profit news organizations are bad or ineffective or that independent oversight and regulation of journalists is bad or ineffective. People are asking how you get those things to happen!

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Thu May 09, 2019 1:34 am UTC

I told you two organizational structures that can be used to solve different problems, and you are arguing against the possibility of people organizing. It's the actual processes of determining what to report on and how to provide oversight that you need to be concerned about. For that, you need to know what problems you are solving. I'm not interested in giving introductions into propaganda and journalism, and YOU have the power to ask "How COULD we use one of these organizational structures to solve this one problem?" And you might not have all the answers. That's fine; I don't have all the answers. But it would put us in a position where a conversation could actually occur.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Sizik » Thu May 09, 2019 11:54 am UTC

Chen wrote:But YOU proposed the “solution” on how to solve journalism. People are criticizing your solution because we cannot see how to enact not. No one is arguing the solution you proposed isn’t good in and of itself. No one is debating that non-profit news organizations are bad or ineffective or that independent oversight and regulation of journalists is bad or ineffective. People are asking how you get those things to happen!


Is it just me, or is it not obvious that how you get these things to happen is to get enough people interested that you can pool your resources and go try to make it happen?
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Chen » Thu May 09, 2019 12:21 pm UTC

Sizik wrote:Is it just me, or is it not obvious that how you get these things to happen is to get enough people interested that you can pool your resources and go try to make it happen?


So basically let the free market handle it? I mean ok sure that's an option. It seems like a poor one since the change that is being discussed is NOT happening. There was nothing stopping it from happening if you were just going to let things sort themselves out. Hence why I figured there'd be at least a change in strategy in HOW you'd want to bring about the solution that was suggested.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Thu May 09, 2019 12:37 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Biden is being pushed by the same old neoliberals. He has corporate backing, but that is not a winning platform. Democrats are dead if they vote Biden.

Which candidate can beat Trump?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfGxX9EXHsg

While that may be true, he is the only moderate with big name recognition, and he competes with Bernie for the blue collar vote in the Midwest. That alone gives Biden a big advantage vs the dozen progressives splitting the liberal wing. I'm curious what happens as the candidates drop out, should give better information as to which wing is bigger/preferable to voters.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Sizik » Thu May 09, 2019 12:38 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Sizik wrote:Is it just me, or is it not obvious that how you get these things to happen is to get enough people interested that you can pool your resources and go try to make it happen?


So basically let the free market handle it? I mean ok sure that's an option. It seems like a poor one since the change that is being discussed is NOT happening. There was nothing stopping it from happening if you were just going to let things sort themselves out. Hence why I figured there'd be at least a change in strategy in HOW you'd want to bring about the solution that was suggested.


Saying "let the free market handle it" sounds like you're just expecting to sit back and wait for someone else to do the work for you. I'm saying if you want to make change happen, at some point you have to knuckle down and try to make it happen yourself.
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Chen » Thu May 09, 2019 1:08 pm UTC

Sizik wrote:Saying "let the free market handle it" sounds like you're just expecting to sit back and wait for someone else to do the work for you. I'm saying if you want to make change happen, at some point you have to knuckle down and try to make it happen yourself.


Yes ok fair enough. I was talking more generally (I have no background in journalism and wouldn't be able to start my own association or news organization).

Just saying the solution will work when people decide on their own it has to be done feels like a bit of a tautology. If there are no objections to the details of the solution, the discussion tends to move towards how to implement it.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests